Well, if they offer the TR 6070 and tune the exhaust of that buzzy insect to sound more like a V8, I might test drive one. I don't understand the need to copy the Germans; the magnetically controlled shocks in the V are not the same used by BMW, so why can't the engine have more cylinders? (I realize that licensing comes into play. Ferrari?) We need to have our own brand identity and lead rather than follow.

Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

i don't think BMW even offers a magnetic ride control
they definitely don't license MagneRide from BWI (formerly the intellectual property of Delphi)
I assume they don't use MagneRide because of it's GM roots and the perception that would create they have their own active suspension that is basically like the older CVRSS system used in our pre-MagneRide active suspensions

Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

They have trained (brainwashed?) their customers into acceptance of the washboard ride quality. Just like they have somehow convinced the public that their magical manufacturing powers are worth the premium their cars demand.

Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

All of this is pointless. It was announced the atsv will have the vsport 3.6tt motor. Again GM manages to pirate sales from itself. Who's going to buy a v ats when they can have the cts v sport.

That's a pretty false statement - BMW sells plenty of M3s when the 540i is right nearby. Also, BMW doesn't need to sell nearly as many M3's as they do 540is to make their budgets and sales targets.

Also? I would. I feel like the CTS is too freaking big. My ATS feels like a glove and I like that. The ONLY reason I'm considering the ATS-V over just upgrading my ATS is the potential other toys that might come on it - there's more than just who has more power.

Originally Posted by JimmyH

ATS-V is targeting the M3. M3 is going back to turbo 6. So ATS-V must be turbo 6. GM is just hoping the small percentage of BMW buyers who actually understand how an engine works won't notice the cylinder configuration.

No. The decision to go to the TT6 was actually made (internally, within GM) before it was announced the M3 was going down to a TTT6 (I still love that tri turbo line!) as well. There are plenty of good reasons the TTV6 was selected (which have all been beaten to death elsewhere in the web). I know there are plenty of those out there that disagree and will miss the V8 rumble (myself included!!) but this is the best foot forward for a LOT of reasons, and I'm glad they went that direction in the end, despite the consequences - and believe it or not - one of the biggest reasons was this thing called "Camaro".

Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

Well it makes some sense...mclaren mp4-12c is a TT 3.8L V8....ferrari 458 is a 4.5L NA V8....maybe cadillac has teamed up with ferrari to give us 9000rpm of bliss in the ats-v??

Heh, if only GM Powertrain could justify it. The engineers are certainly capable of it, the problem is letting them get the "ok" from management!

But there you're talking a "boutique" manufacturer that lives in a dream world by comparison in terms of development constraints and budgets in relation to sales volume - along with restraints that GM doesn't have as well. European insurance rates basing off of engine displacement, for example, or their emissions ratings.

Let us not forget that every V8 engine in a GM car after the LT1/LT4 has been subsidized due to the fact that the engine architecture was developed as a truck engine first and a car engine second - it takes around a billion dollars to develop a new engine architecture for a major auto manufacturer and get it into production, so the development costs are a pretty large concern. Thank god we love trucks enough that GM can't help but throw a V8 in stuff while having the budget to do silly variations like the LSA and LS9.

Also, as a food for thought, many within GM Powertrain do not consider the LF3 a performance engine because it has integrated exhaust manifolds which provide a theoretical limit to the engine they do not find appropriate for a "performance" application.

Originally Posted by jimmyH

btw, BMW announced back in 2009 that this M3 would have single or twin turbo I6. I am kinda thinking GM did not finalize anything about the ATS, much less the V, back then.

True, we did know the M3 was going to reduce displacement - though specifically the tri-turbo announcement was much more recently. Regardless, the actual decision to power the ATS-V had little to do with the competition directly... GM simply has the same constraints and considerations they do, and in the modern engineering world that tends to generate cars that have many similar characteristics.

Regardless, the past few years of development of alpha (And its variants) has been one heck of an adventure that isn't even over - and I'm extremely anxious as to the day when the first production alpha Camaro rolls off the line - a Cadillac assembly line - and once it's done I'd love to see an interview with Al Oppenheiser and/or Scott Settlemire about how things have gone.

Originally Posted by mikesul

I noticed that on Leftlanecarnews yesterday they said the new M4 will only be available with a DCT, no manual. That would be a mistake on BMW's part. Just when the ATS-V will get a manual.

BMW disenfranchised a lot of loyalists changing the 3 coupe to the 4 series, and it just doesn't roll off the tongue the same. Still, the manual transmission is more a relic than ever - they used to be more fuel efficient and faster than an automatic transmission car - but now that is the opposite and the auto sips better and is usually faster (sometimes by a lot). Beyond that they have the advantage of torque management and generally better control of engine power/delivery - especially in high speed response applications like stability control events.

Though, it should be said Porsche also ditched the clutch pedal for their latest and greatest as well. It's incredible how far the "purists" must go for that "old fashioned" clutch. Personally, I acknowledged that the M6 would suck more gas than the A6. It'd be harder to deal with in snow. It might be harder to sell or trade in. And maybe it'd even be slower. But I didn't rightly care because it's just more fun.

That and I love how many people are shocked it's a Cadillac.... with a manual transmission.

The notion of V8 proliferation is warranted. But the idea that it also applies to the LF3 is far-fetched. Face it, the ATS-V will be a low volume automobile. If GM is hard pressed to recoup whatever LF3 R&D funds used it would be best done with placing that powertrain in a vehicle/trim that they will manufacture and subsequently sell more frequently.

And there has been no talk of the LF3 making its way into GM's light duty trucks.

That's a pretty false statement - BMW sells plenty of M3s when the 540i is right nearby. Also, BMW doesn't need to sell nearly as many M3's as they do 540is to make their budgets and sales targets.

Also? I would. I feel like the CTS is too freaking big. My ATS feels like a glove and I like that. The ONLY reason I'm considering the ATS-V over just upgrading my ATS is the potential other toys that might come on it - there's more than just who has more power.

No. The decision to go to the TT6 was actually made (internally, within GM) before it was announced the M3 was going down to a TTT6 (I still love that tri turbo line!) as well. There are plenty of good reasons the TTV6 was selected (which have all been beaten to death elsewhere in the web). I know there are plenty of those out there that disagree and will miss the V8 rumble (myself included!!) but this is the best foot forward for a LOT of reasons, and I'm glad they went that direction in the end, despite the consequences - and believe it or not - one of the biggest reasons was this thing called "Camaro".

On really

Camaro/firebird vs corvette

Impala vs Grand Am

Monte Carlo vs Gran Prix

Deville DTS vs Seville STS

Shall I continue?

This isn't a car with a cult like following its a new car that odds are one will be marketed over another causing in the failure of the other. How about more recently the STS vs CTS?

Re: 4.5 V8TT engine

This isn't a car with a cult like following its a new car that odds are one will be marketed over another causing in the failure of the other. How about more recently the STS vs CTS?

The problem is you're making generalizations about vehicles that share powertrain compared to one another - Camaro vs Firebird, which makes sense, but putting the same engine in two different cars doesn't matter.

But that's not even the point. This debate is about powertrain choices on a low volume trim versus a totally separate model low volume trim.

By your logic, BMW steals sales from itself by offering a 335i and 535i. Heck, by your logic, the Malibu steals sales from an ATS because it also gets an LTG. By your logic the base CTS with the 2.0T steals sales from the ATS (or vice versa...).

In perspective, of the 4th gen Camaros, the SS w/T56 accounted for less than 1% of the sales volume of the Fbody - barely any to notice - so sales stealing to and from the Corvette isn't really a consideration when you're talking fractions of percents of volumes that determine the uptake on a trim package. Now if you wanted to say the Camaro SS vs Trans Am, then you'd be right - that's the problem with making the same car with just a badge difference. In the case of this thread, we're talking about different cars entirely, just sharing the same platform.

Your point is also invalid here because the Pontiac Aztek and Chevrolet SSR were sales success stores. How, you say? Because both cars had a sales target in order to justify their engineering budgets. If they sold less than that, they'd lose GM money. If they sell more, profit. Both sold above expectations and justified their development budgets.

Camaro and Firebird were both failures in the end, which is why the program was cancelled.

But if we want to split hairs, the point is that a buyer looking at an M3 isn't really considering looking at a 550i or vice versa. Those that want an M3 want an M3. It is a low-volume option that isn't intended to sell in large numbers - it just has to pay for its existence. Those looking at a 550i AREN'T going to look at an M3.

You will have VERY few exceptions to this rule. You'll have some crossing where someone looks at an ATS 2.0T and a CTS 2.0T, but you WONT see a lot of cross shopping between an ATS-V and a CTS VSport and the options/equipment on the car will even help differentiate. The number of "stolen sales" is very very small, to the point where you're talking about the same style of customer that cross shops a pickup truck and a sedan - which happens - but is the exception and not the rule.

There was a study done in 2010 where 80% of BMW 1 series owners & drivers thought their car was front wheel drive. Do you think people even realize that two cars share the same engine? Do you know how many people even know that Lexus is owned by Toyota? Seriously, I could also go on.

It's all irrelevant anyway - because the CTS VSport won't be a high volume trim and neither will the ATS-V. Both will exist and both will have very low sales targets.